Your columnist, and our esteemed mayor, John Bartus’ opinion regarding his endorsement of the two Marathon charter amendments on the Aug. 23 ballot is halfway there. I agree with the mayor that voting “yes” and passing the second charter amendment (ensuring balanced council turnover) is imperative. It is the only way to ensure problem-free elections going forward.
However, regarding the first charter amendment, I am adamantly opposed to lengthening terms for the city council. We used to have two-year terms. The argument for increasing the terms to three years stated that city councilpersons were just beginning to understand their role when they had to start running again. I did not see a problem with that. I thought it made sitting council people more invested in their positions and pushed them to learn quickly. Proponents of moving to three years argued it would allow the council to get more done before individual council people had to run again. Not long after the council got their three-year terms, they cut the number of meetings to once a month and limited resident workshops. You can decide if there was any benefit to the three-year terms other than convenience for the council. For years there have been fewer opportunities for residents to voice their concerns. Now, the council is proposing to further restrict their constituents’ voices by holding fewer elections for the sake of … saving money?
The mayor asked us to vote for the first charter amendment for financial reasons. We have been told it would cost $30,000 per odd-year election. Doing the math, only six elections would occur in odd years in the next 20 years (assuming passage of the second charter amendment). If no other issue requiring an election comes up on an odd year, i.e. a referendum in the county, or the incumbent council members run unopposed, Marathon would pay $180,000 over those 20 years. Let us round up and say $200,000 for cost increases. Amortized over 20 years, that is $10,000 a year. Are we saying that we cannot afford to budget $10,000 a year to hold elections and hold the council accountable? Even if one believes that is too much, there are plenty of ways to find that money. We could have 100 elections for what it cost to buy the Quay property. For the record I was, and am, in favor of the city buying the 7 Mile Marina because there was an actual concept in place before the purchase … but that is a column for another day.
Council members who act badly should be held accountable to the voters as quickly as possible. Yes, our charter provides for removing council members for cause. We all know situations in which city council members, past and present, behaved in a manner arguably deserving removal, but it simply did not happen. The courage required to start the removal process is often lacking. Fortunately, those who acted egregiously when we had two-year terms could be voted out … and often were. Saving $10,000 a year is not a good enough reason to increase time in office and reduce voter accountability.
The second charter amendment will provide a mechanism to ensure that no city council election in Marathon will have more than three open seats during one election cycle. The idea that we as a city would have to vote for five council seats in one election is not good for the city and the second charter amendment will prevent it from happening.
Vote NO on Charter Amendment ONE and Vote YES on Charter Amendment TWO for a more accountable city council and better choices for Marathon’s elections.
